Bolton Fatally Asserts War Crimes; US Attorney Firings Related to President's Geneva Violations
US Attorney Firings Linked To Geneva Violations, War Crimes, Failure To Enforce Laws of War
Ref Bolton has fatally asserted the United States did "not" say that Iraq was an imminent threat. Small problem: An "imminent" threat is required; without it, combat is not lawful and the President orders were not lawful.
Bolton has fatally laid the ground work for war crimes prosecutors. These fatal assertions raise questions about the legality of the deliberations in the White House, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice. Bad timing, especially in light of the questions about war crimes implications of the illegal US attorney firings.
___ Why would Bolton fatally assert something that was contrary to his interests, and raise reasonable questions about his competency as an Attorney?
Bolton hopes to pretend that the US Attorney firings have nothing to do with the President's efforts to thwart enforcement of the laws of war. These are issues of war crimes warranting public attention, and Member of Congress oversight.
Title 28 and 50 require the President and Attorney General to have informed in writing their decision not to enforce the law. Bolton's statement confirms that there were war crimes which this President and Attorney General did not, as required, report in writing their decision not to provide the required Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.
The Geneva Conventions and UN Charter do not permit attacks on nations unless there is an imminent threat. Bolton, in asserting (rightly or wrongly) that the US did "not" say that Iraq was an imminent threat, has fatally admitted his involvement with illegal warfare. Bolton was in a position to stop the events, planning, and influence policy.
This is no different than the Nazis illegal war of aggression, and the charges filed against legal counsel and high government officials.
Bolton is also an attorney and could be prosecuted for his alleged complicity with war crimes.
The issue is not the truth or falsity of what Bolton is saying; but whether the required element for lawful war -- an imminent threat -- was or was not understood to exist. Bolton's assertion is against his interests, and he would not be saying something that is contrary to his interests unless it is most likely true: That there was no imminent threat.
It is a secondary issue whether or not the US claimed there was an imminent threat from Iraq. This is irrelevant: Bolton's assertion -- that there was no mention of an imminent threat -- trumps the analysis.
Either Bolton is lying, and misrepresenting what was or wasn't said about the imminence threats the White House said existed; or
Bolton is telling the truth, and sharing openly the deliberations this President has asserted could not be disclosed.
We do not need to look at any White House documents to examine what Bolton has said. Either there was an imminent threat asserted; or there was not. Either there was a ruse imminent threat; or there was not.
Bolton’s error is to pretend that a fatally assertion cannot be reviewed; or that to "defend" himself, Bolton would have to "access" classified information. No, Bolton's error is to openly assert something that is contrary to his interests.
The way forward is for the Congress to take this fatal admission and expand the inquiry into the illegal warfare. Bolton’s assertion -- that there was no imminent threat -- is the basis for war crimes prosecutors to question whether Bolton knew there was no imminent threat, and refused to remove himself; or whether Bolton has fabricated this excuse as part of a war crimes defense.
If there was no imminent threat; or the President "never said" there was or was not an imminent threat is meaningless. An "imminent threat" is required before the President can issue lawful orders.
The above fatal assertion by Bolton is fair warning to the National Security Council, war crimes prosecutors, and all US military and civilian personnel that the US is engaged in an illegal war of aggression; and that Bolton has fatally confirmed the illegality was understood to have been part of the planning.
Bolton cannot argue that something is "right" when the means to do that is illegal. Fatly to Bolton's assertion are the laws of war which prohibit targeting political leadership and non-military targets. However, because Bolton says that targeting the Iraqi leadership was acceptable, then other nations may lawfully target, under the principle of reciprocity, the US leadership. Bolton is, in effect, endorsing foreign power attacks on the US leadership including the President, Speaker, and other high ranking officials. This is not permissible.
There is no basis for Bolton to suggest that Iraq or its leadership were a threat to anyone when there existed no imminent threat.
Indeed, public statements by White House spokesmen show that there were assertions that there was an imminent threat. Whether the imminence was real or not is meaningless: IT did not exist; and legal counsel and the White House have, as with the US Attorney situation, made inconsistent statements warranting Congressional review.
There is a difference between a pre-emptive strike against a non-imminent threat; and a pre-emptive strike against an imminent threat. One is lawful; the other is not. These are issues of war crimes.
For the Vice President to assert that there is a "mortal" threat, he would have to look in the mirror and consider to what extent he is a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
It defies reason for anyone in the GOP to argue "what we must do" about an illusory threat, but suggest "nothing must be done" about a real threat in the White House. Any standard of "Threat" and "lawlessness" the GOP applied to Saddam must be applied to the US President: Is he or is he not a threat to civilized society.
This Vice President is delusional. He has asked the White House and DOJ Staff to assent to his wishful thinking about the benefits of American democracy, while openly destroying it. He is reckless. He is a war criminal. He is part of a criminal enterprise to undermine the American Constitution. These are not allegations but statements of fact. War crimes prosecutors have evidence that the Vice President is linked directly with planning meetings, discussions, and other illegal activity designed to violate the laws of war. These are issues of war crimes.
Bolton's assertions should be taken for what they are: Denial and lack of contrition by a qualified US member of the bar association. These issues need to be reviewed in the context of disbarring Bolton for alleged complicity with these grave breaches of Geneva. He was in a position to advise the President and, as with the Nazi policy makers, does not appear to have counseled the President to fully comply with Geneva. Bolton as an attorney had an Article 82 Geneva obligation to enforce Geneva and ensure there was an imminent threat. Bolton did not remove himself as he had a duty from this illegal enterprise.
If Tenet says there was no analysis of an imminent threat, then he has fatally disclosed information. The President cannot claim privilege on these documents the CIA director says do not exist. Either they do or they do not. Time to, as with the US Attorney inconsistencies, use this fatal assertion by Tenet to expand inquiry into the information provided to the President: Was there or was there not any evidence that the President ignored legal advise in the face of a non-imminent threat; or did Tenet lie about documents which the President had?
The Americans are in legal trouble. The Iranians are doing nothing wrong. The US has violated the Non-proliferation treaty.
It is an illusion for Bolton to suggest the President has "full" constitutional authority to wage illegal warfare, or start an illegal war with Iran.
The Iranians and Americans are on different sides of the aisle. The Americans are war criminals; and the Iranians are defending their land and sea from illegal invasion. America proposes to expand illegal warfare as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII.
The US may not lawfully "pursue" anyone. Iran may lawfully defend itself. The US may not expand illegal warfare.
It is an illusion of "hot pursuit" to argue that there is "no time" to review the matters with Iran. "Hot pursuit" means there is insufficient time to deliberate. This does not apply. Rather, Bolton's statements about "hot pursuit" indicate he is deliberating about the legal term which says there can be not time.
The doctrine of "whatever he needs to do" is not la legal foundation. Iran may lawfully take military action to defend itself, and wage war against an illegal occupation on its border which is interfering. Illegal warfare is not legalized by expanding it or convincing a civilian population to support it.
Bolton remains under investigation for war crimes and his failure to prevent illegal activity. Bolton has provided no defense for his access to NSA transcripts. The President and Attorney General have no explained why they did not take action to review Bolton’s access to domestic NSA surveillance transcripts.
Bolton's analysis is defective, flawed, and suggests he is suffering from some sort of neurosis or delusion. The issue with Saddam is not what the US can do to justify war crimes, but whether the US was justified to fabricated evidence to expand illegal warfare. If there were any questions about Bolton's motives, he would not be using trickery, deception, ruses, and flawed legal reasoning. The error is for the American public to accept his non-sense as true, but then assent to charges that he cannot be questioned under oath for his recklessness in avoiding the legal issues in Geneva.
If Bolton says there is "unquestionably" a reasonable assessment that what the President was doing was right; then the same "unquestionably" standard could be applied to conclude, without question, that Bolton is unfit to be taken seriously.
Without an imminent threat, there is no legal basis for Bolton to say that anyone is a threat. Bolton does not appear to be a credible witness. It remains to be understood why Bolton is arguing over what the President has or has not said.
It is most likely that White House counsel fully knows the US Attorney firings has direct bearing on the Iraq war crimes allegations; and that the two are linked. There are may legal issues related to the US Attorney firings. Bolton is most likely hoping to contain the problem related to the US Attorney firings; and hope people never ask the question: Why would the President fire US Attorneys over their failure to enforce the Geneva Conventions?
Bolton’s arguments are circular, childish, and frivolous. It is reasonable to question is competence, mental ability, and his state of mind. By all accounts he appears to be a fairly healthy adult male. Perhaps the public may wish to question the seriousness of inviting him to make comments given his apparent delusional state: Moving from seriousness to ideas of grandeur. Then again, perhaps Bolton doesn't want anyone to make a connection between the US Attorney firings, NSA monitoring, and the illegal Geneva violations:
___ Where were the US Attorneys in this?
___ What did the President block the US Attorneys from doing in enforcing Geneva?
Even if Bolton’s statement were to be taken at face value, and there was no imminent threat, the President’s problem is that his advisers have openly commented on issues the President might have been able to claim privilege.
Bolton’s disclosures do not resolve any issue over war crimes and the US Attorney, but opens the barn door to discovery.
There is no merit to any statement Bolton makes: They are reasonable basis to expand inquiry into the link between the US Attorney Firings and illegal violations of Geneva: Why was there no enforcement by the US Attorneys of Geneva against the President? Bush has no power to rewrite history, or pretend that the UN Charter permits something that is outlawed: Attacks without an imminent threat. If so, foreign fighters may do the same and lawfully attack the US for its war of aggression.
When protecting the US Constitution, Bolton's approach would ask that we not wait until the President violates the law, but pre-emotively assume because Bush is a war criminal that we no wait for evidence of crimes; and not wait for notices of his effort to destroy the Constitution.
___ Why is Bolton arguing for two sets of standards on whether there is or is not lawful action; but pretends that his President is above the law?
What did or didn't happen in the 1990s has no bearing on the lack of imminence on the eve of the Iraq invasion.
Bolton can believe what he wants. The issue is whether his statements in 2007 can be taken as a reflection of what was going on in the White House in 2003.
Bolton fatally asserts that there was a "decision" to do something, but offers no documents showing that the President did or did not decide to illegally remove a head of state. Bolton fails to discuss the efforts Saddam made to negotiate his removal or recognize Israel.
Whether Bolton believes that someone is or is not responsive to military threat is meaningless when considering whether the laws of war exist and apply: They do.
It is a secondary issue whether the Illegal American occupation did or did not fully meet all Geneva obligations. The issue is not to "look forward," but to examine the evidence of war crimes. This requires review, not assent to Bolton's calls to remain focused on another smokescreen.
The Best strategy is for:
A. Bolton to resign as an attorney and accept he has fatally asserted a legal position which undermines the President's legal standing in Iraq;
B. Congress to review this evidence of war crimes in the context of the US Attorney firings;
C. For all evidence related to Geneva war crimes to be turned over to war crimes prosecutors;
D. For the State Attorney Disciplinary boards to use all evidence in the US Attorney firing e-mails to disbar all DoJ Stand White House staff counsel for their involvement with war crimes and efforts to block enforcement of the US Constitution;
E. Use BOlton's open assertions that there was no statement about an imminent threat as the basis to question the inconsistencies from the American legal community over whether the US Attorneys were or were not fired because of war crimes;
F. To expand Member of Congress inquiry into whether there were disagreements in the Administration over whether the Geneva Conventions should or should not be followed, despite Hamdan reminding the war criminals in the White House staff counsel that the Conventions were requirements.